EU Referendum Rules

Debate between Chuka Umunna and Stephen Doughty

Monday 5th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

This debate is nominally about the threshold that we should have applied to the EU referendum, the argument being that if the leave or remain vote secured less than 60% support in a turnout of less than 75% there should be a second referendum. For the benefit of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), the motion arises from a petition by a leave campaigner who presumably lacked confidence at the time that his side of the argument would be victorious.

Of course, the debate is no longer about thresholds, but the more substantial question of a second referendum. I will quickly dispose of the threshold issue and move to the wider debate that is raging on the main issue.

On thresholds, the aim of the petition is reminiscent for me of the amendment successfully tabled by our Labour colleague, George Cunningham, in 1978 to the Scotland Act 1978, which provided for a referendum on Scottish devolution. He was thoroughly opposed to devolution for Scotland and his amendment would have required at least 40% of registered Scottish electors to support devolution for it to go ahead. The amendment had the effect of killing off devolution then because, although a majority in the poll—51.62%—voted for devolution with 48.38% voting against, the turnout was 64%, so just 32.9% of registered electors had actually voted in favour. As the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) pointed out, the institution of that mechanism had the effect of promoting the status quo.

I do not think it is desirable generally to hold lots of referendums because our constituents send us here to make decisions based on the manifesto and set of values that we put forward. Ideally, we should trouble our constituents with referendums only in the most exceptional circumstances. When major constitutional issues are at stake, it seems to me that there is some justification for that.

When we do have a referendum, as on this issue, I am sceptical about applying the high threshold proposed in the petition. I think there is great difficulty in telling those who have supported the proposition which, on the face of it, they seem to have done by a clear majority, that it cannot be carried because there has been a low turnout. After all, we are all here and a low turnout has not been an obstacle to any of us being elected. A low turnout or lack of support for a particular Government—the present Government has the support of less than 25% of registered electors—does not stop them taking office. People might question whether thresholds and mechanisms that were not applied to us during an election should be applied in a referendum.

I worry that with such thresholds we may end up with people seeking deliberately to depress turnout in what is, whatever side of the argument they are on, a thoroughly active democratic exercise. I am not completely closed to a higher threshold, given the constitutional change, but I am sceptical.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is making an interesting point, but does he agree that—as I have seen in correspondence—constituents who signed this petition were reflecting not the detail of thresholds and so on, but their feelings about this. The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) talked about people being emotional and pulling themselves together, but the real issue is how people felt about being lied to, the lack of clarity on the options before them and the clash of mandates when it comes to devolved Administrations, certainly in Wales. Does he agree that there was something more fundamental about how people felt in the aftermath and that we must do a lot to bring people back together?

[Mr Umunna]

I do not disagree with that. I will move on from thresholds, but the danger is that they may be seen to ignore views on either side.

Blacklisting

Debate between Chuka Umunna and Stephen Doughty

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Umunna]

That is deeply shocking, and quite extraordinary. I thank my hon. Friend for adding that to the debate.

Unfortunately, in the past few months we have learned that blacklisting checks were carried out on workers who were to be engaged on publicly funded projects. In November, Mr Kerr submitted evidence to the Select Committee in which he stated that member companies used the association’s services to check potential employees applying to work on major public sector contracts. He said that the projects ranged from airport runways to buildings such as Portcullis House on the parliamentary estate, the Ministry of Defence in Whitehall, GCHQ, the Jubilee line, the millennium dome, private finance initiative projects, hospitals, schools, Olympic sites, roads, rail contracts and so on. That is corroborated by an admission last month by Balfour Beatty in a letter to the Olympic Delivery Authority. Without the knowledge of the ODA, Balfour Beatty admitted that it had used the services of the association in 2008 to check 12 prospective Olympic workers who, thankfully, went on to be employed. It was also corroborated yesterday by Cullum McAlpine, who is a director of Sir Robert McAlpine Enterprises Ltd, and was the chair of the association from 1993 to 1996, and confirmed to the Select Committee that Consulting Association services were used on a large number of public projects, again including the Olympics and the Jubilee line.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given the scale and scope of this disgraceful practice, does that not underline the urgent need to get to the bottom of this and take action to tackle it? We are going to invest in huge national infrastructure projects, whether in the energy sector or more widely, and we must never let this happen again.

[Mr Umunna]

I completely agree.

There has been concern that blacklisting may have taken place on Crossrail after it was revealed that a former senior human resources manager employed by a contractor on that project, Ron Barron, was a regular user and contributor to the association’s services in a previous job. An employment tribunal found that he introduced the use of the blacklist at his former employer, the construction firm, CB and I, and checked names with the association more than 900 times in 2007 alone. He was engaged as a consultant before the decision of the employment tribunal case against his previous employer was published, and the contractor says that it was not aware of the case.

In addition, the Select Committee has heard that there was information on association files regarding the monitoring of workers by the authorities because they were Irish nationals, and it has been suggested that they were barred from working on Ministry of Defence sites for that reason. I have tabled parliamentary questions to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Transport, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on all those topics. The answers that I have received indicate that there has been no recent discussion, correspondence or investigation of blacklists being used by construction companies engaged on public sector projects. That may have changed since I received those answers. I do not believe any of the Ministers answering my questions were seeking to be unhelpful in providing those answers, but given what I have just set out and what we now know, there is sufficient evidence to justify the Government carrying out a full investigation into the extent of blacklisting that took place, and which may still be taking place, at the very least on public sector projects.

After carrying out an investigation, the Government should set out what practical steps may be needed to stop blacklisting, and to prevent blacklisting checks on public projects in future. No doubt, they will want to consider and reflect on whatever findings the Select Committee makes when it reports. We can have a discussion as to what form that investigation will take, but we need to learn the full truth of what went on. Beyond blacklist checks being made on workers on public sector projects, David Clancy, the Information Commissioner’s investigations manager, who carried out the raid in 2009 on the association, has made very, very serious allegations in relation to the police and security services. Giving evidence to the Select Committee, Mr Clancy, a former police officer, said he believed that some of the information held by the association would have come from the police or security services, based on the nature of the information held. For example, an in-depth analysis of an individual’s home circumstances and what his neighbours thought about him featured on one file.

Mr Kerr denied that the association had any involvement with the police or authorities. However, he confirmed that the Economic League, some of whose records formed the bank of information held by the association, had met and exchanged information with the police. At the very least, it is likely that some of the information given to the league by the police made its way on to the files held by the association. Having seen examples of some of the records myself, it is clear that they contained information based on the surveillance of individuals, including periods away from construction sites. It seems improbable that such information came exclusively from construction firms themselves. That further underlines the need for a full Government investigation into blacklisting, which should consider the role of the police and other such authorities.